When you have no argument, it is the last resort.

You are more or less upset that you discovered Santa Claus does not exist, and lashing out at your parents for it?

That story of the young Athanasius, whether apocryphal or not, illutrates the difference that deLugo is incapable of comprehending.  If the story occurred, the bishop was incorrect, that the young Athanasius play-baptizing someone would have validly baptized.  There's no need to dismiss the story as apocryphal simply because a bishop may have had a wrong opinion.  St. Cyprian had an opinion about re-baptism that was later declared heretical.  Just because this was some bishop from the time of the Fathers doesn't make his opinion correct.

So according to the external intention opinion, the play-baptism of young Athanasius would have been a valid Baptism.

But, while performing the rite exteriorly, he had no intention to actually DO what the Church DOES, i.e. to perform the Rite of Baptism.

On the ther extreme, promoted by the ignorant and mendacious De Lugo, you have to internally INTEND what the Church INTENDS.  That's preposterous.  Otherwise, that classic example of an atheist being able to baptize would be absurd.

What has to happen is that someone needs to internally intend to DO what the Church DOES, i.e. to perform the Catholic Rite of Ordination / Consecration / Mass / Baptism, etc. ... vs. jesting about it, vs. mocking it, vs. being insane or half-asleep, etc. and going through the motions.

There's no difference whatseover between LACKING the internal intention vs. having a contrary internal intention.  In both cases, the necessary intention to perform the Sacrament is lacking.

This hypotehtical Mason +Lienart could have wished all he wanted in his head that the Sacrament not be valid, but when he put on his vestments and followed the Catholic Ritual in public during a public celebration of the Rite, he intended internally to DO what the Church DOES, and the Church imposes upon that action the intention that the Church has in having these ministers do it.

But the feeble mind of De Lugo is incapable of comprehending these distinctions.  De Lugo confounds internal intention with the internal intention to intend what the Church intends, whereas there must be internal intention to DO what the Church does, thus explaining why an atheist can validly baptize.

It's very straightforward, but has been distorted by the subjectivists.  This trend toward subjectivism and relativism has been growing for the past 500 years or so, culminating in the doctrinal relativism of Wojtyla and the moral relativism of Bergoglio.

That's not humor.  It's yet another lie, claiming that I have no argument.  My argument has been explained several times, but De Lugo (who believed not long ago that infertility invalidates marriage) is either incapable of grasping it or filtering it out out because he doesn't want to address it.

He's lied multiple times already as well --

1) claiming that I'm motivated by a psychological need for absolute certainty regarding the validity of the Sacraments.

As if De Lugo could read my mind.  Sacramental validity can only be known with moral certainty.  It's possible that my own baptism was invalid if the priest botched the form somehow.  It's possible that the priest has botched the words of consecration at any given Mass I assist at where I can't hear the words.

2) claiming that I hold the "external intention" opinion and rejected the Holy Office ruling

This comes from De Lugo's inability to graps the difference between internal intention to DO what the Church DOES and internal intention to intend what the Church does.  Those are two separate things, the distinction being essential to explain why an atheist can baptize.

3) claiming that I refused to answer some question and then went on a downthumb spree ... when in fact I have not been on this thread since earlier last evening and had not caught up with the thread to even see said question.  Nor have I ever engaged in downthumb campaigns.

This is all rather pathetic, De Lugo.

Yes, dL, I agree.
It intrigues me that Ladislaus continually calls us, who submit to every word of Vatican I, "Old Catholics", because we do not agree with his exaggerated notion of Papal Infallibility. Yet he sees this condemnation "anathema sit" of Alexander VIII but argues against it. I am at a loss to understand that. Ladislaus?...

Why not reference Trent:
"CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema."

Can we not say that a heretic is against the whole idea, likely does not even agree with it, and does not even know why he is baptizing, yet he baptizes using the proper matter and form - which is to say what he intended to do and actually did, is what the Church doth. In doing what the Church doth, according to Trent, the sacrament was valid, to saith otherwise is a sin (anathema) - according to Trent.

But the heretic did what the Church doth = valid sacrament. Per Trent you have to agree with this.

+Lienart ("the heretic?") actually did what the Church doth = valid sacrament.
If he purposely intended in his own mind to administer the sacrament invalidly, but still did what he Church doth = valid sacrament.

As 2V said, if his intention was to invalidate the sacrament we could not know, but per Trent, all he needed to do was use proper matter, form and intend to do (and he actually did) what the Church doth.

By that measure, if his intention was to purposely administer in an invalid sacrament, he failed.

Yes, that's what we are discussing, and per Trent "forming a contrary covert intention NOT to do what the Church does" does not affect the validity of the sacrament provided everything else was done as the Church doth.

This is what Lad was saying and he's right. Whatever was going on inside the mind of +Lienhart is altogether irrelevant.